Complainant –  M\s AXA SA.

Respondent – Mr. Akshay Radia

Disputed Domain – AXAI.IN

Decision – is awarded to M\s AXA SA.

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “M\s AXA SA“.The Complainant is engaged in major lines of business like property and casualty insurance, life insurance and savings, and asset management proposed to both individual and business companies.

The Complainant contends that their trademark AXA is traded on Paris Stock Exchange since 1988 and in 1996. The Complainant is doing business in 64 countries in various parts of the world including Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific.

The complainant is also the registrant and proprietor of the domain names,, etc.In India, the trademark AXA of the complainant is registered for the first time on November 3, 2003. The trademark “AXA” of the Complainant is registered in many countries such as Austria, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, North Korea, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland and  United States of America.


A complaint dated February 26, 2018, has been filed on the Respondent by the Complainant.There is no response from the respondent, which tends the tribunal to take a decision on the basis of the material facts on record.

In order to win the domain from the respondent in an INDRP dispute, The complainant must prove all three following grounds:

1)Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

The disputed domain name was registered by the respondent on February 06, 2016. However, the Complainant owns the registered trademark AXA before 17 years. So, the disputed name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the complainant.

2)The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name.

As per the evidence established by Complainant,  the complainant owns multiple domain names comprising the trademark AXA which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “AXA” by the respondent is not legal as he has not obtained any permission from the trademark holder. Therefore the Respondent has no legitimate right over the said domain name.

3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.

The fact that the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for a price also indicates that the domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith.


Honorable Arbitrator Vinod K. Agarwal taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.The arbitrator has quoted the below reason.

In light of the foregoing findings,the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.The domain name was registered in bad faitha and is being used in bad faith.Hence, considering all these factors the disputed domain name to be transferred to the complainant.

Please read the further details about the dispute”

Access additional articles on INDRP @ INDRP Knowledge Base

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of and does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *